See: Organic Growth.
Coca-Cola grows as a company about 8% a year. Like...GDP of the world plus a few hundred basis points or percentage points. (Emerging market countries grow a lot faster than the U.S. and are still just being intro'd to many soft drinks.) So Coke has organic growth as a company of 8%. But every few years, it buys a bolt-on competitor, i.e. it can just add that competitor's product to its already-existing and powerful distribution system and goose the competitor's volumes by a big number.
That inorganic growth, i.e. growth that happens because Coke bought the company rather than grew it on its own, is "unnatural," or at least not organic to the basic business that Coke is running. The term matters because so many companies mask failing organic businesses by making lots of small acquisitions which hide vulnerabilities in their core.
Google "Cendant Fraud" if you want the XXX-rated version of this inorganic chicanery.
Related or Semi-related Video
![Finance: What's the difference between mergers and acquisitions?](https://media1.shmoop.com/video/thumbnails/COURSE.FINANCE.330_770x433.jpg)
Finance: What's the difference between m...22 Views
Finance allah shmoop what's the difference between mergers and acquisitions
all right people listen up Merger that's what's about to
happen here it's a merger acquisition that's what's about to
happen here Corporate america is kind of same thing when
two companies merge while they generally you know attracted to
each other hopefully respect each other they share stock or
combined the stocks of each side and you know combine
efforts and then and then cuddle afterwards if they're successful
at the merger than the combination of two roughly equals
yields more than the one plus one combo that made
them so two companies get together on generally equal ish
footing In that case acquisitions are a combining more like
that eating thing on much different footing The large company
eats or buys the target either using its more highly
valued stock currency or it's taft to do so Well
why would a company acquire another Well the target might
have one hundred employees ninety of whom can be fired
with massive expense savings after the acquisition For the acquirer
such that economically the acquisition won't just makes a whole
lot of financial sense acquisitions happen for market power reasons
As well like imagine the negotiating leverage that amazon would
have if it bought the next five biggest online retailers
Or maybe it'll just kill them Probably not legal for
them to buy him anyway given the monopoly like dominance
of amazon these days But wow that would be a
powerful set of acquisitions And that would be a good
reason for ems on to acquire a whole bunch Things
and bezos would grow even more powerful maybe too powerful
Up Next
What are the economics of a good merger? The economics of a good merger need to show how profits and benefits will outweigh costs. A good merger wi...
Accretive: the acquisition has a net positive impact on earnings per share. Dilutive: earnings per share are negatively impacted as a result of the...